Cold Case Christianity: How Can You Trust Christianity Is True If You Haven’t Examined All the Alternatives?

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity:

How Can You Trust Christianity Is True If You Haven’t Examined All the Alternatives?

Posted: 23 Jan 2019 01:59 AM PST

I’ve had the privilege to speak on university campuses across the country, making a case for the reliability of the New Testament Gospels and the truth of the Christian Worldview.

Then your god must be lazy, as he apparently has the ability to get people to do whatever he wants by simply waving his magic wand, see Ezra 1:1.   Why did he involve you?  Nothing good on cable?

One of the most common questions asked in the Q and A is something similar to: “Have you taken the time to apply the same approach with all the other religious worldviews?” Sometimes people ask this question because they are curious about how well other ancient religious claims (or alleged eyewitness accounts) hold up under investigative scrutiny. But many times this question is followed by a more pointed objection: “How can you trust Christianity is true if you haven’t examined all the alternatives?”

Given the large number of spiritual claims circulating across the globe (and throughout history), why should we conclude one (or any) of them is true until we’ve examined all of them? At first blush, this seems like a reasonable approach, and when it’s asked by a skeptic, it’s typically offered in an effort to expose the inadequate or incomplete nature of my investigation (or some underlying bias I may have against opposing claims). Although I investigated several theistic and atheistic worldviews prior to becoming a Christian, I didn’t examine every view. Is my certainty related to Christianity therefore misplaced? Should the limited nature of my investigation disqualify or temper the case I’m presenting to skeptics and believers? I don’t think so.

Then get ready for atheists to remind you that they don't need to investigate every miracle or religious claim to reasonably conclude that theism is false.  In fact, nobody is required to refrain from drawing conclusions until they have examined every last bit of possible evidence.  But since what exactly constitutes a sufficient amount of data-collection and analysis to justify starting to draw conclusions, cannot be precisely delineated, you'll have to live with the fact that reasonable people can disagree on at what point during investigation one becomes reasonable to start drawing conclusions.

I have no trouble saying Christians can be reasonable to believe Jesus rose from the dead.  Reasonableness is not commensurate with correctness.  Atheists can be "reasonable" to deny god's existence too.

Since your bible says atheists are fools (Psalm 14:1), we can prove such bible texts to be error by simply showing that atheism isn't foolish.  Had the bible limited itself to saying atheism is wrong, the stakes wouldn't be so high.

In every criminal trial, the investigators and prosecutors are obligated to present the evidence related to one defendant. While the burden of proof lies with the prosecutorial team, the prosecution is not required to have examined every possible alternative suspect.

Ok, then atheists aren't required to examine every possible alternative religion after they dispense with Christianity. 

If I am investigating a case in which the suspect was initially described as a white male, 25 to 35 years of age with brown hair, the potential suspect pool in Los Angeles County would be quite large; there may be hundreds of thousands fitting this description. As I make the affirmative case related to one of the men in this large group, I’m under no obligation to make the case against the others.

Likewise, atheists are not required to make a case against all other possible forms of theism or dieism.

In fact, when the jury evaluates the case and decides whether the defendant is guilty, they will do so without any consideration of the alternatives. If the evidence is strong enough to reasonably infer the defendant’s involvement, the jury will make a confident decision, even though many, many alternatives were left unexamined.

Which is precisely why so many innocent people are convicted...prosecutors can do a good job of making innocent people look guilty, and it is likely the lack of critical thinking skills plaguing the average person or juror, that is some of the reason the prosecutor's bullshit case sounds strong.

The case for Christianity is made in a similar way. While it may be helpful to examine a particular alternative worldview on occasion to show its inadequacies or errors, these deficiencies fail to establish Christianity as factual. How can you trust Christianity is true if you haven’t examined all the alternatives? The case for the Christian worldview must first be made affirmatively even if no other claim is examined negatively. If there’s enough evidence to reasonably infer Christianity is true, we needn’t look any further.

Then atheists can similarly be reasonable to decide at which point they've falsified sufficient numbers of theistic arguments, that they need not worry about any possible theism arguments they might not have seen yet.  Just like no Christian worries about the possibility that there is very solid archaeological and historical evidence for Mormonism and we just haven't seen it yet.  At some point, trifling possibilities really don't stand in the way of the reasonableness of drawing confident conclusions.

The affirmative case will either stand or fall on its own merit, even if we’re unable to examine any other “suspect”.

yes.

The Christian worldview does not require “blind faith”. In fact, Jesus repeatedly presented evidence to support His claims of Deity.

No, the story of the NT is told by unknown authors, and they allege that Jesus went around doing miracles and making claims that wouldn't be true of anyone except god.  Once again, Wallace, you are preaching to the choir, you are very FAR from sounding convincing to people who haven't already swallowed the Christian bait hook line and sinker.

The Christian worldview does not require “blind faith”.

yes it does, read the following verses.  I've also explained why apologists are dead wrong in their efforts to pretend these verses are talking about evidence-based faith:

 27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
 29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (Jn. 20:27-29 NAU)

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Heb. 11:1 NAU) 

 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
 26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; (Rom. 8:23-26 NAU)

 Wallace continues:

In fact, Jesus repeatedly presented evidence to support His claims of Deity and when John the Baptist expressed doubt, Jesus responded with yet another evidential display of His power.

The bible says Jesus did miracles.  And you think THIS is supposed to pass for "apologetics"?  Ok, then apparently we don't need your books and seminars and lectures...all we need to do is read the bible, and presto, we know it's true and we just don't wanna believe it...right?

Christians are not asked to believe without evidence (or worse yet, in spite of the evidence), but to instead place their trust in the most reasonable inference from the evidence, even though there may still be several unanswered questions.

 But where exactly the inference becomes sufficiently unwarranted as to call it "blind faith" is not capable of precise adjudication, which means you'll have to allow that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on where to draw that line.  

Christianity is evidentially reasonable, even if we are unable to examine every possible alternative.

We have to wonder how you'd respond to an atheist who said "Atheism is evidentially reasonable, even if we are unable to examine every possible alternative."